Labor to turn back the boats.

[HAL]

Have you ever had the time or data to weigh all that up but let us say that the numbers were adjusted according to current population size ?

[Tannin]

Wow! You call that laughably flawed "logic" an argument? If all those other countries were willing to do what you blithely assume they will do, they would already be doing it and we wouldn't have 20 million refugees in the first place.

If you were to translate your bizarre "logic" onto the you'd say "just imagine we replaced Toovey with a player who could kick four goals every game. Gosh, considering that we have 22 players on the ground, that means we'd average 88 goals a match!" Absurd.

[David]

Perhaps I'm getting a little ahead of myself here, but you'll recall that I wrote a few posts back about taking our foot off asylum seekers' throats for a moment and looking for a regional solution. Some kind of UN-initiated global treaty could be one such solution, but, as I already wrote, there's sadly no chance of it happening in the near future. That doesn't make it impossible; it's just a question of political will. International humanitarian treaties have been signed before and they will be signed again.

Now, what of your absurd claim that a more humane refugee processing policy in Australia is going to lead to every refugee in the world coming here?

[stui magpie]

Maybe, just maybe, the smart thing to do would be to see what can be done to prevent people becoming refugees in the first place, rather than just trying to ship 20 million people all over the globe.

Solve the refugee crisis by relocating everyone.................without fixing the root cause more refugees just keep coming.

[David]

How would you fix the root cause? You're essentially talking about stopping all warfare and natural disasters. I'm all for measures that make the world a safer place � Obama's deal with Iran, for instance � but I don't see how doing that gets in the way of trying to solve current refugee crises, or vice versa.

If anything, fewer refugees in impoverished countries actually reduces economic pressure on those host countries, which may well in turn reduce geopolitical aggression. So it's a win-win. The question is, how much do you (and the rest of us) want that, and how much are we willing to sacrifice for it?

[Tannin]

[stui magpie]

[David]

[3.14159]

I'm glad the ALP had a debate about the issue and came to the decision it did.
Firstly because here at last is a party talking about issues and letting the public in on the discussion.
(it's a refreshing change from the how the other 2 go about policy decisions).
2ndly because in the scheme of things it's far more important and we can now back to talking about real questions like how are we going to tackle climate change, is COAL Australia's ONLY viable option going into the the second decade of the 21 century, do we want to kiss goodbye to the Aussie dream of owning your home and sell it to a government subsidised nuevo rich Squattocracy etc etc etc?
3. By raising the quota of refugee intakes less people will be in detention and we get a better say on who we actually let in to the country.
4. Shorten proved he is a man that can admit when he got it wrong!

As far as I can see it's a win win win win decision and I applaud it!

[watt price tully]

[watt price tully]

Actually, if we get rid of Arabs, Europeans, Asians, Africans, Americans, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims, Blacks, Whites, Coloureds, & Rastafarians, Right Wingers, Left Wingers, The Rich, The Poor, Drinkers & Non drinkers we could solve this problem

[Tannin]

[Tannin]

[David]

[Dangles]